Quote:
Originally posted by Mike F@Aug 2 2004, 06:20 PM
Just to add to the conversation Howard Dean, speaking today on a government controlled mainstream media outlet, CNN, said terror warnings are politically based.
I don't think that the admin made up a threat this specific to gain a political advantage, nor do I think they would have sat on a specific threat like this until a specifically opportune time like just after the DNC, but then I don't think they're above using the war on terror in general.
For example, the day after Edwards was announced as the VP candidate, Tom Ridge came out and gave a briefing/press conference basically on nothing... "America is under the threat of attack by terrorists, but we have no new or specific information on where, when or mode of attack."
|
I agree actually.
Tom Ridge yesterday, while giving his press conference detailing very specific threats to specific buildings also said the information would not have come to light without President Bush's aggressive posture in the Middle East.
So . . . . . he was doing his job in letting the public know about what appears to be a genuine threat via a genuine source but also using the occasion to sell the message that the information would not have come to light - ie: we'd be sitting ducks - without the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, obviously a key election issue.
Was that the appropriate moment to deliver the latter part of that message? I didn't think so. It only lent credibility to those who might claim terror threats are politically motivated and by doing so, weakens the most important part of the message.
By the way, in answer to your post regarding mocking the war on terror, late night talk show hosts do it all the time. The Onion, much closer to 9/11, took it head on with some wicked satire. I would think the Southpark people would be recognized as offering political satire as well. Michael Moore, on the other hand, isn't selling satire. I see a difference.
Cowperson